SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Centaurus Company Limited v Musyoka (Appeal E313 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 551 (KLR) (25 February 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KEELRC 551 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
551
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 551 (KLR)
Decided
25 February 2026
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureAppellant seeks to lodge a cross appeal against the judgment of the trial court, while the Respondent opposes the application.CoramDKN MARETE
The application to lodge a cross appeal is dismissed with costs.

Facts

The Appellant was awarded Kshs. 1,257,082.89 by the trial court, and an appeal was preferred. The Appellant closed shop and was not sure if the award would be paid. The Appellant deposited the decretal sum six months after the judgment.

Issues

  • Whether the Appellant can lodge a cross appeal against the judgment of the trial court.
  • Whether the Appellant's delay in lodging the cross appeal is justifiable.

Reasoning

The court finds the application to be untimely and without merit due to the Appellant's delay in lodging the cross appeal, despite the Appellant's partial compliance with the court orders.

Outcome

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to lodge a cross appeal is dismissed.
  • The costs of the application are in the cause.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Wasike vs Swala [1984] KLR 591
  • Alibhhai Musajee vs. Shari Mohammed Al-Bet Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1998
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case